Create Schedule-Triggered Flow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds scheduling and batch-processing context. It doesn't discuss whether the created flow is auto-activated, whether deployment is required, or what happens on duplicate names, but it doesn't contradict any annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose and use cases, followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description, combined with the rich schema and annotations, is adequate for understanding what the tool does and how to invoke it. However, it doesn't mention return values or post-create steps like activation (available via sf_activate_flow), and lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sf_create_scheduled_job.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's param list mostly paraphrases the schema (e.g., 'object whose records to process') and doesn't add meaning beyond it. It also omits 'connectorTarget' in its summary, but the schema covers it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Creates a Schedule-Triggered Flow that runs automatically on a recurring schedule' and specifies the resource and behavior. It also lists use cases (nightly batch processing, periodic data updates, scheduled notifications), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_flow and sf_create_scheduled_job.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use for nightly batch processing, periodic data updates, or scheduled notifications' provides explicit context and typical scenarios. However, it doesn't name alternatives or mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when a simple scheduled Apex job or autolaunched flow would be more appropriate).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.